The province can curb stupidity with their photo radars or red light cams, vehicle registration, plates, hell even vehicle inspections (follow the same safety inspection like the maritime provinces) - That revenue should be enough if you stay out of insurance.

Private insurance alone will have a huge impact on driving behavior, as it rewards bad drivers with punishing premiums.

jimmy4321 wrote:The province can curb stupidity with their photo radars or red light cams, vehicle registration, plates, hell even vehicle inspections - That revenue should be enough if you stay out of insurance.

Private insurance alone will have a huge impact on driving behavior, as it rewards bad drivers with punishing premiums.

.... and that would be why AB, which has private, as a threshold No Fault ??

If, just having private is the solution, why did AB, for example, go to No Fault ?

We've already seen that the threat of financial penalties for distracted driving hasn't worked. But the threat of higher insurance premium from private insurance will ?

The first step in solving a problem is figuring out what the problem is. The problem is expectations of big dollars for little collisions.

I agree with the others, Eby, a lawyer, likely won't accept No Fault as the solution until all else has failed. During that time it will cost the motoring public.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"

Cactusflower wrote:Thank you, hobbyguy, for a sensible post. The only point I disagree with is the one about the $1.2 billion being exempt from ICBC's bankruptcy. It was as big or an even bigger factor than distracted driving, phony claims, ridiculous litigation, or drivers who got their licences out of Crackerjack boxes (or more nefarious means).

Simple calculation:

ICBC lost $500 million last year. 1200/500 = 2.4

That means, at max ICBC was 2.4 years away from "crunch time". Realistically, if ICBC lost $500 million last year, without a significant increase - the loss this year would be $600-700 million? Then in the year after, $700 -800 million??? So the result is the lower taxes we paid accelerated the ICBC "crunch time" by less than two years.

In the background is a surprising factor that really hurts ICBC (and other insurance organizations). Insurance companies have to keep a large pool of risk capital. They make a tidy investment income from that pool of funds. In recent years returns have plummeted as "prudent" investment yields have dropped like a stone (low interest rates, low bond yields [except for "junk"] etc.). That has really hurt the bottom line of insurers. Provincial governments have no control over that.

It is possible that the BC Liberals overestimated the returns, and thus miscalculated the ability of ICBC to pay dividends. Just as a simple example, in 2010 5 year GICs were available at bout 4% interest rate. The same 5 year GIC today is at about 2%. Then, having done that, a bit of political cover up to artificially hold down rates until the election (the cover up is always worse than the offense) - resulting in the need for "catch up" rate increases.

The other main factor, as I mentioned, is the increase in accidents - especially those caused by distracted driving. The auto manufacturers are actually making this much worse as so many newer vehicles are equipped with touch screens. In an older vehicle all you had was knobs, and after a short while most drivers could adjust vehicle functions without ever taking their eyes off the road. Not so much anymore.

Have a look at the graph of traffic fatalities. Until about 2010, any reasonable person would have predicted a continuing drop in traffic fatalities (for every fatal accident there are about 63 non fatal accidents with injuries, and 156 accidents in total). So that scenario likely added to the hubris of taking dividends from ICBC.

So it is easy to see that a 2010 decision was based on information that changed both dramatically and unpredictably.

In context, the 2010 economy was shaky, just coming out of the 08/09 mess, and so a tax increase (an economic depressor) would have been unpalatable. Government finances were in the red, so something had to be done. Dividends from ICBC at that point in time would have seemed a safe, and prudent choice for improving government finances. Perhaps IF reviewed very carefully every year and treated as a "one time source".

Of course, politicians of all stripes have a tendency to make a decision and NOT review it for context changes in the future. Pretty sure we have all done that, although on a smaller scale (e.g. Fords have been good cars, so this Pinto ought to be a good car )

In the end, as always, it is "us" who pay the bill. Regardless of the political shenanigans (which both delayed and now are accelerating the increases) "we" would wind up paying - it is just a question of sooner or later.

We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis

hobbyguy wrote:The other main factor, as I mentioned, is the increase in accidents - especially those caused by distracted driving. The auto manufacturers are actually making this much worse as so many newer vehicles are equipped with touch screens. In an older vehicle all you had was knobs, and after a short while most drivers could adjust vehicle functions without ever taking their eyes off the road. Not so much anymore.

Have a look at the graph of traffic fatalities. Until about 2010, any reasonable person would have predicted a continuing drop in traffic fatalities (for every fatal accident there are about 63 non fatal accidents with injuries, and 156 accidents in total). So that scenario likely added to the hubris of taking dividends from ICBC.

Trying to make sense out of your stats. Couldn't find the graph you were referring to, so I went to ICBC's stats for 2011 to 2015.

"Now auto insurers are jacking up premiums on drivers in response to the increase in collisions.

More accidents equate to higher costs for insurance companies, and insurers pass along these costs to customers. The Boston Globe reports that insurers plan on increasing auto premiums 3% to 6% on Massachusetts drivers this year, on top of increases of 6% to 9% in 2016. Insurers in North Carolina, meanwhile, have requested auto premium hikes averaging 13.8%, according to the Charlotte Observer. Drivers in neighboring South Carolina saw their auto insurance rates increase an average of 8.9% last year."

SNIP

“Distracted driving was always there, but it just intensified as more applications for the smartphones became available,” said Bill Caldwell, executive vice president of property and casualty at Horace Mann Insurance, to the Wall Street Journal recently. The insurer plans on hiking auto insurance premiums an average of 8% this year on top of a 6.5% hike last year.

Young people appear to be disproportionately responsible for fatal road crashes involving a distracted driver—i.e. someone who might have been texting, scrolling through Snapchat messages, or using a navigation system. "Young drivers (age 16 to 24) have been observed manipulating electronic devices at higher rates than older drivers,"

SNIP

"Modern cars are packed with more high-tech features than their predecessors, so it costs more to repair them. In the past, it was “just fixing a bumper,” Allstate spokesperson Adam Polack explained to the Charlotte Observer. “Now it has a backup camera in it. So cars are more expensive to fix.”

So much as we would like to politicize this... facts on the ground mean the increase is just in line.

We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Louis D. Brandeis

The NDP did not hike ICBC rates. ICBC did. They had to do it because the liberals raided the billion dollar fund that ICBC was using to maintain low rates. The Liberals did that (and made BCHydro cough up money) so they could say they balanced the budget so you would vote for them again. Which the majority of you here did So you want to blame someone blame the people who took the cash that was keeping your rates low, not the people who ended up on the receiving end of the situation.

I had a windshield replaced through ICBC. Aprox $650.00. Just over a year later some dick head traveling at twice the speed limit in a construction zone throwing up rocks nailed me again. I got an estimate to pay out of my own pocket.....$285.00.

im calling BS on icbc needing to hike rates.they spend waaaay too much on their media campaigns and waay too much trying to fight small claims instead of just paying out. it should not take years to settle claims with trips to the coast to see specialist and psychologists .icbc and personal injury lawyers have made an industry out of fender benders. icbc is willing to spend 100k to try to not pay out 25k.they basically have the rcmp collecting fines on their behalf .it is a fricken joke.they need to be privatized so the market can dictate costs not some socialist monopoly

GrooveTunes wrote:I had a windshield replaced through ICBC. Aprox $650.00. Just over a year later some dick head traveling at twice the speed limit in a construction zone throwing up rocks nailed me again. I got an estimate to pay out of my own pocket.....$285.00.

I hear you big time. Had a similar situation with an old SUV. Got it done cheap as there are a many many windshields in stock everywhere so the window company could get them dirt cheap. Took them 30 minutes and cost me less than my ICBC deductible. This is because windshields are included with comprehensive. Moronic way of doing things.

voice of reason wrote:im calling BS on icbc needing to hike rates.they spend waaaay too much on their media campaigns and waay too much trying to fight small claims instead of just paying out. it should not take years to settle claims with trips to the coast to see specialist and psychologists .icbc and personal injury lawyers have made an industry out of fender benders. icbc is willing to spend 100k to try to not pay out 25k.they basically have the rcmp collecting fines on their behalf .it is a fricken joke.they need to be privatized so the market can dictate costs not some socialist monopoly

Wow, that's all there is to it ? Gee, funny how all those well educated employees didn't think of this.

... Oh and ICBC doesn't get any of the fines.

Ya privatize that will fix everything.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"